The Temporal Law

[RandyPNW]

The Law was temporary and fulfilled in time.

Matt 5.17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

The clause "until heaven and earth disappear" does not mean that the Law will remain in effect until that the universe disappears. It means that it is more certain that the Law must be fulfilled by Christ than the certainty that the universe will continue.

How do I know that? The same version is worded in a slightly different way elsewhere, indicating not that the universe is eternal, and therefore the Law is eternal.

On the contrary, it is stated clearly that the universe is, in fact, in a temporary mode until it is created new. Therefore, the Law is not being equated with the eternity of the Universe. On the contrary, it is being asserted that the Law is more certain to be fulfilled by Christ, in time, than the certainty that the universe will continue forever. The universe may not continue forever in its present mode. But the Law will most certainly be fulfilled in time, at the cross of Christ.

Luke 16.17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

Matt 13.31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

The idea concerns the atonement of Christ being more important to be fulfilled than the need for the universe to continue in its present state forever.

Luke 12.33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

Some people who want the covenant of Law to be eternal point to the often-used phrase, "it is for all your generations." But it was a contract in perpetuity, but not a contract guaranteed for eternity. Once a contract is broken, and it was a conditional contract, the contract ceases to exist. It was for all of Israel's generations, as long as they remained in compliance with the terms of the covenant.

There is a sense that Divine Law is eternal, stemming from the creation of Man "in God's image and likeness." But this is generic law, which does last forever. This concept of "law" is to be distinguished from the *covenant* of Law, which was designed to only temporarily establish a relationship between God and Israel until eternal atonement could take place, establishing an eternal relationship between them.

[Fenris]

Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

He's saying to uphold the law; to teach it and to do it. I don't see how this makes it a temporary thing.

[RandyPNW]

Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

He's saying to uphold the law; to teach it and to do it. I don't see how this makes it a temporary thing.

Just to let you know, this subject isn't aimed at you. I spent 10 years on Usenet, with a good portion of that time talking with a Reform Jew about this passage.

Rob Strom, who I believe helped start alt.messianic, to keep Christians from trying to evangelize Jews on Jewish websites, believed that Jesus was a good Jew who, based on this passage, indicated that the Law was eternal, until the heavens pass away.

I thought it was a pretty strong argument, but misconceived. The critical element is that 1) it was recorded by Matthew, a Christian who believed the Law was fulfilled at the Cross, and 2) Jesus said he had come to "fulfill it."

This was not Jesus coming to confirm 613 regulations that didn't need to be confirmed. Rather, this was Messiah coming to accomplish in completion things that under the Law were incomplete. Temporal atonement would become eternal atonement.

Therefore, Jesus was *not* saying that the longevity of the Law was to be compared with the longevity of the universe. Rather, it was sort of using the phrase as an oath, indicating that "if the sky could fall then I will fail to fulfill the Law."

In other words, the universe may be temporal, but it is sturdy and of very long duration. The Messianic completion of the Law will be even more sure than that, and it will confirm the validity of the Law, with all its regulations, including defining the purpose of every requirement.

[Fenris]

Just to let you know, this subject isn't aimed at you. I spent 10 years on Usenet, with a good portion of that time talking with a Reform Jew about this passage.

Rob Strom, who I believe helped start alt.messianic, to keep Christians from trying to evangelize Jews on Jewish websites, believed that Jesus was a good Jew who, based on this passage, indicated that the Law was eternal, until the heavens pass away.

If I wanted to keep Christians from evangelizing Jews, this isn't the passage I would focus on. Anyway.

I thought it was a pretty strong argument, but misconceived. The critical element is that 1) it was recorded by Matthew, a Christian who believed the Law was fulfilled at the Cross,

We actually don't know who wrote this book, or where, or when. It is attributed to Matthew, but the book itself doesn't say that anywhere.

and 2) Jesus said he had come to "fulfill it."

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. "

What is "everything" that will be accomplished?

This was not Jesus coming to confirm 613 regulations that didn't need to be confirmed. Rather, this was Messiah coming to accomplish in completion things that under the Law were incomplete. Temporal atonement would become eternal atonement.

But that isn't what he says. The opposite, he's telling his followers that to follow the law is to give one heavenly rewards.

In other words, the universe may be temporal, but it is sturdy and of very long duration. The Messianic completion of the Law will be even more sure than that, and it will confirm the validity of the Law, with all its regulations, including defining the purpose of every requirement.

And since you claim this has already happened, what is the purpose of every requirement of the law?

[RandyPNW]

If I wanted to keep Christians from evangelizing Jews, this isn't the passage I would focus on. Anyway.

True, but this wasn't his only focus. Never softened his hostility to conventional Christianity.

We actually don't know who wrote this book, or where, or when. It is attributed to Matthew, but the book itself doesn't say that anywhere.

Doesn't matter. He was assigned a place among the Twelve apostles of Christ. Few had such intimate knowledge giving the Church a blueprint of Jesus' teachings.

and 2) Jesus said he had come to "fulfill it."

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. "

What is "everything" that will be accomplished?

The overarching purpose of human redemption is a complete restoration to God. The Law partially accomplished this, but inevitably fell short. Atonement had to be made more than just *within* the Law, or by its particular specifications. More, atonement had to be made *for* Israel under the Law, or for the failure they exhibited under the Law. It was an atonement Jesus said *he* would have to accomplish, and not the priests under the Law.

This was not Jesus coming to confirm 613 regulations that didn't need to be confirmed. Rather, this was Messiah coming to accomplish in completion things that under the Law were incomplete. Temporal atonement would become eternal atonement.

But that isn't what he says. The opposite, he's telling his followers that to follow the law is to give one heavenly rewards.

Yes, the Law, at that time, remained in force as a covenant. Every requirement remained in place. But Jesus was prophesying that he would have to complete the obedience of these commandments by doing something that only he could do. The implication was that he, as a sinless human, did not need to comply with the Law in terms of offering sacrifices for his own sins. Rather, he would have to sacrifice for human sins by dying as a result of them. This is why, on the Cross, Jesus said, "It is finished." His death for sin was the completion of the OT covenant, even if Israel failed under that covenant.

In other words, the universe may be temporal, but it is sturdy and of very long duration. The Messianic completion of the Law will be even more sure than that, and it will confirm the validity of the Law, with all its regulations, including defining the purpose of every requirement.

And since you claim this has already happened, what is the purpose of every requirement of the law?

Some of the requirements of the Law established the morality that existed from the beginning. Some of them showed that atonement had to be made not just for those breaking laws under the covenant, but more, for those who completely failed under that covenant.

Morality does not go away with Jesus' new covenant. It just no longer requires messianic atonement, nor does it require any of the things that had temporarily applied atonement within the Law.

[Fenris]

True, but this wasn't his only focus. Never softened his hostility to conventional Christianity.

Only speaking for myself, I'm not hostile to Christianity. I think it's a good thing and a perfectly fine religion for gentiles. I just don't think it's true.

Doesn't matter. He was assigned a place among the Twelve apostles of Christ. Few had such intimate knowledge giving the Church a blueprint of Jesus' teachings.

If it was in fact Matthew who wrote the book.

The overarching purpose of human redemption is a complete restoration to God. The Law partially accomplished this, but inevitably fell short.

But the law makes no claims to have this purpose. The law is simply the terms of God's covenant with the nation of Israel.

Atonement had to be made more than just *within* the Law, or by its particular specifications. More, atonement had to be made *for* Israel under the Law, or for the failure they exhibited under the Law. It was an atonement Jesus said *he* would have to accomplish, and not the priests under the Law.

But atonement is only necessary when one falls short of the law. If the law is rendered null and void, it follows that there's no more need for atonement.

Yes, the Law, at that time, remained in force as a covenant. Every requirement remained in place. But Jesus was prophesying that he would have to complete the obedience of these commandments by doing something that only he could do.

But...that's not what the chapter says.

The implication was that he, as a sinless human,

I never did quite get this part. You say that Jesus wasn't human, but then you say he was a sinless human. He can't be both.

did not need to comply with the Law in terms of offering sacrifices for his own sins. Rather, he would have to sacrifice for human sins by dying as a result of them. This is why, on the Cross, Jesus said, "It is finished." His death for sin was the completion of the OT covenant, even if Israel failed under that covenant.

This is the concept of vicarious atonement. And it's fine if you believe in it, because it is in your bible. But it isn't in mine.

Some of the requirements of the Law established the morality that existed from the beginning.

And those are still in effect, no?

Some of them showed that atonement had to be made not just for those breaking laws under the covenant, but more, for those who completely failed under that covenant.

Lev 26:44 and elsewhere doesn't let me accept this conlcusion.

Morality does not go away with Jesus' new covenant.

I'm glad you think this way.

It just no longer requires messianic atonement,

I don't know what "messianic atonement" is, because it isn't in my bible.

[RandyPNW]

Only speaking for myself, I'm not hostile to Christianity. I think it's a good thing and a perfectly fine religion for gentiles. I just don't think it's true.

This gives us a basis for friendship. I don't have to agree with friends, but I do have to enjoy their company.

The overarching purpose of human redemption is a complete restoration to God. The Law partially accomplished this, but inevitably fell short.

But the law makes no claims to have this purpose. The law is simply the terms of God's covenant with the nation of Israel.

I see the Law, as a moral code, inextricably linked to its nature of being a covenant. So whether it's to follow the moral commandments, or to follow certain ritual requirements, it is all part of keeping true to a covenant.

And since the purpose of the covenant was to keep Israel safe and prosperous in their land, failure to do so, as a nation, brought about a complete failure of the covenant. Therefore, restoring Israel to status with God, either under the Law or outside of that covenant, is the assumed purpose. If the Law failed, it remained its purpose to lead to its assumed goal, which was the restoration of Israel's status with God, if even under a new covenant.

But atonement is only necessary when one falls short of the law. If the law is rendered null and void, it follows that there's no more need for atonement.

Nothing surprises God. He knew Israel would fail, as a nation, under the Law. And so, He was using it as a stepping stone towards fulfillment under a less arduous covenant--one that did not require 50 different ways of purifying one's self.

Yes, the Law, at that time, remained in force as a covenant. Every requirement remained in place. But Jesus was prophesying that he would have to complete the obedience of these commandments by doing something that only he could do.

But...that's not what the chapter says.

Actually, I think it does. Jesus said here that he would "fulfill the Law."
Matt 5.17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

I never did quite get this part. You say that Jesus wasn't human, but then you say he was a sinless human. He can't be both.

I said that Jesus was a sinless man--not that he wasn't human.

This is the concept of vicarious atonement. And it's fine if you believe in it, because it is in your bible. But it isn't in mine.

Yes, the idea of "vicarious sacrifice" requires that you believe Jesus was God, that God was "in Jesus," suffering the sins of mankind through the experience of Jesus suffering from both the Jews and the Romans.

Some of the requirements of the Law established the morality that existed from the beginning.

And those are still in effect, no?

Yes.

Some of them showed that atonement had to be made not just for those breaking laws under the covenant, but more, for those who completely failed under that covenant.

Lev 26:44 and elsewhere doesn't let me accept this conlcusion.

Well, that's true if God meant He would not allow a termination of the covenant of Law. But God only said *He* would not break the covenant. What I believe He did was establish a new covenant to give Israel another chance, just as he did during the ancient Persian Restoration.

Morality does not go away with Jesus' new covenant.

I'm glad you think this way.

True Christianity does not believe in lawlessness.

It just no longer requires messianic atonement,

I don't know what "messianic atonement" is, because it isn't in my bible.

Right, I understand. It's a NT interpretation of Jewish prophecy.

[Fenris]

This gives us a basis for friendship. I don't have to agree with friends, but I do have to enjoy their company.

Lovely.

If I didn't enjoy your company (plural), I wouldn't be here.

And since the purpose of the covenant was to keep Israel safe and prosperous in their land,

That wasn't the purpose of the covenant. It's a condition of the covenant. Those aren't the same things. This isn't a small point, I think it's driving our differences here.

failure to do so, as a nation, brought about a complete failure of the covenant.

Which the bible never describes. The opposite, Lev 26 specifically says that God will always remember the covenant, even while we're in exile. And He has, because He is faithful to His word, and to us.

Therefore, restoring Israel to status with God, either under the Law or outside of that covenant, is the assumed purpose. If the Law failed, it remained its purpose to lead to its assumed goal, which was the restoration of Israel's status with God, if even under a new covenant.

Doesn't make sense with what I said, above.

Nothing surprises God. He knew Israel would fail, as a nation, under the Law.

It would be nice if He told us, because this isn't in the bible.

Actually, I think it does. Jesus said here that he would "fulfill the Law."
Matt 5.17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

This makes it sound like the event he's talking about is a very far time away "until heaven and earth disappear". Yet according to you it's only about a year away from when he said this.

I said that Jesus was a sinless man--not that he wasn't human.

But according to you, he wasn't a man.

Yes, the idea of "vicarious sacrifice" requires that you believe Jesus was God

It also requires me to believe that one person can have atonement through the suffering of another. Which I don't believe, namely because the Jewish bible teaches personal responsibility "Every soul dies for it's own sin".

Well, that's true if God meant He would not allow a termination of the covenant of Law. But God only said *He* would not break the covenant.

It actually says that He will *remember* the covenant. Regardless of what we do or how bad we are. Which is an amazing statement, that God never gives up on us no matter how far we stray.

“‘But if they will confess their sins and the sins of their ancestors—their unfaithfulness and their hostility toward me, which made me hostile toward them so that I sent them into the land of their enemies—then when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled and they pay for their sin, I will remember my covenant with Jacob and my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land.

And then

Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. I am the Lord their God. But for their sake I will remember the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of Egypt in the sight of the nations to be their God. I am the Lord.’”

What I believe He did was establish a new covenant to give Israel another chance, just as he did during the ancient Persian Restoration.

There's nothing in the bible about the second temple era being a "new covenant".

True Christianity does not believe in lawlessness.

Good to hear.

Right, I understand. It's a NT interpretation of Jewish prophecy.

On that, we can agree.

[Fenris]

In general it's so difficult to square this idea with so much of what is in the bible. We read from Deuteronomy 26 this week.

This day, the Lord, your God, is commanding you to fulfill these statutes and ordinances, and you will observe and fulfill them with all your heart and with all your soul. You have declared today that the LORD is your God, and that you will walk in his ways, and keep his statutes and his commandments and his rules, and will obey his voice. And the LORD has declared this day that you are his people, his treasured possession as he promised, and that you are to keep all his commands. He has declared that he will set you in praise, fame and honor high above all the nations he has made and that you will be a people holy to the LORD your God, as He promised.

This isn't "temporal" or temporary. It isn't about "being protected in the land". God is saying "I chose you, and you chose Me. Walk with me, therefore, and be my treasured people".

[RandyPNW]

In general it's so difficult to square this idea with so much of what is in the bible. We read from Deuteronomy 26 this week.

This day, the Lord, your God, is commanding you to fulfill these statutes and ordinances, and you will observe and fulfill them with all your heart and with all your soul. You have declared today that the LORD is your God, and that you will walk in his ways, and keep his statutes and his commandments and his rules, and will obey his voice. And the LORD has declared this day that you are his people, his treasured possession as he promised, and that you are to keep all his commands. He has declared that he will set you in praise, fame and honor high above all the nations he has made and that you will be a people holy to the LORD your God, as He promised.

This isn't "temporal" or temporary. It isn't about "being protected in the land". God is saying "I chose you, and you chose Me. Walk with me, therefore, and be my treasured people".

Yes, that's your argument, that "fulfilling the Law" is equal to "keeping the Law," and that it is to be "for all your generations," ie forever.

My argument remains as follows. All those things were true, except that the background story, the beginning story, indicated that Man failed, and was sentenced to frustration, unable to do the Law that "fulfills" it.

And so, the Law was known in advance to be a temporary contract, keeping Israel afloat until it failed. But there was, from the beginning, a contingency plan, to enable this covenant to be fulfilled in some other way, beyond the frustration of repeated attempts at atonement.

The words resound in my ears, "Never again." That is the biblical Jewish Hope, and it is happening apart from the covenant of the Law, and apart from its priesthood, sacrifices, and temple. It is taking place by the love and mercy of God, and by His own oath to do it.

[Fenris]

Yes, that's your argument, that "fulfilling the Law" is equal to "keeping the Law,"

I don't even know if I would put it that way. That word "fulfill" isn't in my bible. We are told to keep the law and uphold the law. It's something that applies to every Jewish person, forever, throughout our generations, in any place that we dwell. To say as Christians do that the law is something to be "fulfilled" means that one is already accepting the Christian concept of what the law is as spelled out in the Christian bible. Because it isn't in the Jewish bible. 

My argument remains as follows. All those things were true, except that the background story, the beginning story, indicated that Man failed, and was sentenced to frustration, unable to do the Law that "fulfills" it.

This is specifically a Christian argument and not a universal one. One will only accept it if they already accept the Christian bible and Christian terms.

And so, the Law was known in advance to be a temporary contract, keeping Israel afloat until it failed. But there was, from the beginning, a contingency plan, to enable this covenant to be fulfilled in some other way, beyond the frustration of repeated attempts at atonement.

Again this is Christian dogma. If one only reads the Jewish bible, they would not come to this conclusion.

[RandyPNW]

Yes, that's your argument, that "fulfilling the Law" is equal to "keeping the Law,"

I don't even know if I would put it that way. That word "fulfill" isn't in my bible. We are told to keep the law and uphold the law. It's something that applies to every Jewish person, forever, throughout our generations, in any place that we dwell. To say as Christians do that the law is something to be "fulfilled" means that one is already accepting the Christian concept of what the law is as spelled out in the Christian bible. Because it isn't in the Jewish bible. 

My argument remains as follows. All those things were true, except that the background story, the beginning story, indicated that Man failed, and was sentenced to frustration, unable to do the Law that "fulfills" it.

This is specifically a Christian argument and not a universal one. One will only accept it if they already accept the Christian bible and Christian terms.

And so, the Law was known in advance to be a temporary contract, keeping Israel afloat until it failed. But there was, from the beginning, a contingency plan, to enable this covenant to be fulfilled in some other way, beyond the frustration of repeated attempts at atonement.

Again this is Christian dogma. If one only reads the Jewish bible, they would not come to this conclusion.

Yes, that's why we believe there's a New Testament, to clarify things that were not yet clarified under the Law. But again, "it's a Christian argument."

[Fenris]

Yes, that's why we believe there's a New Testament, to clarify things that were not yet clarified under the Law.

I see this as begging the question. To say that the law "needed clarifying" is to already be a Christian.

[RandyPNW]

Yes, that's why we believe there's a New Testament, to clarify things that were not yet clarified under the Law.

I see this as begging the question. To say that the law "needed clarifying" is to already be a Christian.

You have to remember that Jews under the Law started Christianity. What was their beginning point--outside of the Law or inside of the Law?

[Fenris]

You have to remember that Jews under the Law started Christianity.

Just because they were Jewish doesn't mean that they were correct.

And while the original Christians may have been Jews, the people who formed it and shaped it in the following centuries were not. Did first century Christianity have the same ideas as second, third, and fourth century Christianity? Or did gentiles bring their own ideas in and make the religion based on that?